Effects of Admixtures on the Self Compacting Concrete State of the Art Report

Abstract

In concrete, many properties influence the strength parameters, among that most important parameter is proper compaction. Complete compaction is not possible using conventional concrete with hand compaction or machine vibration in structural element like long column and beam column joints. In these cases, self-compacting concrete (SCC) plays a vital role. It gives full compaction without any external effort. This type of concrete compacts by its own weight, another important advantage with SCC is the absence of segregation. Hence SCC usage has increased enormously in the last few decades. Having lot of merits SCC also has few demerits. One important demerit is that, to prepare SCC lot of cement content is needed compare to conventional concrete; this may increase the CO2 emission also it leads to higher heat of hydration this may cause shrinkage cracks if adequate curing is not provided. This study is an attempt to review the influence of different types of mineral admixtures and chemical admixtures used in self compacting concrete along with a brief knowledge about the change in mechanical behaviour with respect to the influence of these admixtures.

The Role of Xanthan Gum in Predicting Durability Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC) in Mix Designs

“…The results of the ANN analysis showed good agreement with the chosen configuration, confirming the effectiveness of the selected neural network architecture. The findings of this study align with previous research in the field, including studies by Bušić et al [46] on the durability performance and thermal resistance of selfcompacting concrete improved with waste rubber and silica fume, Christopher Gnana raj [47] on the impact of additives on SCC and their effects on mechanical behavior, and Montag et al [48] who presented a rapid chloride migration test to evaluate chloride penetration resistance under different conditions. The consistency between these studies reinforces the credibility and relevance of the current findings within the broader scientific context.…”

Comparative Studies on the Anti‐Corrosive Action of Waterproofing Agent and Plant Extract to Steel Rebar

“…Consequently, it can decide from the above results that the additions of 1000 and 2000 ppm of WP‐2 water‐repellant are not sufficient for the blockage of the water and corrosive ions penetration to the surface of reinforced steel bar through pores and capillaries, as noticed in previous works also. [ 64,65 ]…”

“…Consequently, it can decide from the above results that the additions of 1000 and 2000 ppm of WP-2 water-repellant are not sufficient for the blockage of the water and corrosive ions penetration to the surface of reinforced steel bar through pores and capillaries, as noticed in previous works also. [64,65] The nature of the changes in the CoP values of these six concrete slabs with three different concentrations of both the waterproofing agents is virtually the same until 8 or 9 weeks except for the slab without waterproofing additives. Among these six slabs with the addition of the WP-1 and WP-2 chemicals, the slab with the dose recommended by the company WP-1 in Figure 3e, and 1000 ppm WP-2, in Figure 3f, show slightly more scattered CoP values recorded after 2 months.…”

The anti-degradation consequences of water repellent-based inhibitors for controlling mild steel corrosion in concrete composite

“…The water-repelling with fly ash or silica fume helps to compact the hydrated concrete mixes by enhancing the calcium silicate hydrated (C-S-H) gel formation. [11]. Besides, the waterproofing agents upgrade the denseness and moisture impermeability due to the partial filling of the pores, voids, or cracks by insoluble C-S-H gels in hydrated concrete infrastructures [12].…”